296d
@metal-brain saidNeither side is very likely to achieve its maximal war aims.
@shavixmir
LOL!
https://rumble.com/v1t7jr2-nytimes-admits-ukraine-wont-win-the-war.html
Russia wanted to put in place a compliant regime in Kyiv; that seems utterly impossible now.
Ukraine has stated its war aims as driving Russian forces out of all pre-2014 Ukraine territory including the separatist areas of the Donbas and the Crimea. That certainly seems unlikely given the almost WWI pace of operations.
So who will "win"? Probably neither, at this point both countries are losing.
296d
@no1marauder saidRussia gained territory. Ukraine lost territory. Ukraine is losing because they will have to give up territory in any peace agreement. If they don't Russia will take more territory and Ukraine will have to give up that too.
Neither side is very likely to achieve its maximal war aims.
Russia wanted to put in place a compliant regime in Kyiv; that seems utterly impossible now.
Ukraine has stated its war aims as driving Russian forces out of all pre-2014 Ukraine territory including the separatist areas of the Donbas and the Crimea. That certainly seems unlikely given the almost WWI pace of operations.
So who will "win"? Probably neither, at this point both countries are losing.
Russia is content with letting the war drag on because they will simply take more territory and never have to give it back. Ukraine's counter offensives have failed.
296d
@metal-brain saidRussia is in control of less Ukranian territory than they were a week into the invasion. And while the recent Ukranian counteroffensive hasn't lived up to the hype, it does seem to be making some small territorial gains. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682
Russia gained territory. Ukraine lost territory. Ukraine is losing because they will have to give up territory in any peace agreement. If they don't Russia will take more territory and Ukraine will have to give up that too.
Russia is content with letting the war drag on because they will simply take more territory and never have to give it back. Ukraine's counter offensives have failed.
Russia has been more interested in a peace agreement than Ukraine has up until now (at least after the first few months of the war).
Applying your criteria to the real world, not your fantasy one, it is Russia that is "losing".
@metal-brain saidAnd looking at it from a strategic viewpoint, Russia has weakened its own security by the war. NATO has grown and is vastly increasing its military capabilities and the Russian military has underperformed in Ukraine. To the extent that Russia launched the invasion to increase its own security and weaken that of its adversaries, it has been a spectacular failure.
Russia gained territory. Ukraine lost territory. Ukraine is losing because they will have to give up territory in any peace agreement. If they don't Russia will take more territory and Ukraine will have to give up that too.
Russia is content with letting the war drag on because they will simply take more territory and never have to give it back. Ukraine's counter offensives have failed.
@no1marauder saidThat is not true. You really should not rely on BBC propaganda. That is the same BBC that reported measurements from the ground rather than the conventional air temperature to lie to you about GW. Here is an excerpt from the link below:
Russia is in control of less Ukranian territory than they were a week into the invasion. And while the recent Ukranian counteroffensive hasn't lived up to the hype, it does seem to be making some small territorial gains. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682
Russia has been more interested in a peace agreement than Ukraine has up until now (at least after the ...[text shortened]... ).
Applying your criteria to the real world, not your fantasy one, it is Russia that is "losing".
"At this point, the European Space Agency entered the scare-fest and the BBC duly reported its view that Sardinia and Sicily were expected to hit a high of 48°C. As I noted on Tuesday, this fanciful prediction came from a press release issued by the European Space Agency, where it started using measurements from the ground rather than the conventional air temperature."
https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/feverish-bbc-reporting-european-heatwaves-debunked-actual-temperature-readings
War supporters just don't like hearing the truth. And this is coming from a big time war hawk, Kissinger. Meanwhile you support spending money for overseas wars instead of at home. How is that is your interest?
https://www.newsweek.com/henry-kissinger-ukraine-russia-territory-comments-1709636
@no1marauder said"And looking at it from a strategic viewpoint, Russia has weakened its own security by the war"
And looking at it from a strategic viewpoint, Russia has weakened its own security by the war. NATO has grown and is vastly increasing its military capabilities and the Russian military has underperformed in Ukraine. To the extent that Russia launched the invasion to increase its own security and weaken that of its adversaries, it has been a spectacular failure.
Ridiculous!
Russia pushed the Ukraine border back so USA's puppet regime has farther to launch missiles into Russia, conventional and nuclear. That is Russia's goal and they are achieving it despite the billions our imperialist government spent on weapons to destroy. Keep in mind that is true destruction of wealth. When you destroy what cannot be be repaired that is destruction of wealth.
It is obvious that the western empire has a hard on for Russia if it has to destroy so much to weaken them. Just think of how much good that money could have done if it was spent here helping people instead of destroying wealth in Ukraine and letting the Ukraine people suffer through a war that was completely avoidable. Ukraine didn't have to seek NATO membership and the USA didn't have to withhold the truth that Ukraine was not going to get into NATO as the Russians were falsely led to believe.
NATO wanted this war. Russia didn't want it, but saw no choice expecting Ukraine to join NATO. The USSR had a big problem with nukes in Turkey and Ukraine is right at the border of Russia. The USA hated nukes being put in Cuba in response. Now imagine Russia taking over Mexico by coup, installing a puppet government there that might host Russian nukes at the USA border.
NOBODY LIKES NUKES THAT CLOSE! NOBODY!
@metal-brain saidLMAO! Funny Putin never mentioned that.
"And looking at it from a strategic viewpoint, Russia has weakened its own security by the war"
Ridiculous!
Russia pushed the Ukraine border back so USA's puppet regime has farther to launch missiles into Russia, conventional and nuclear. That is Russia's goal and they are achieving it despite the billions our imperialist government spent on weapons to destroy. Keep ...[text shortened]... ent there that might host Russian nukes at the USA border.
NOBODY LIKES NUKES THAT CLOSE! NOBODY!
However, Finland and Sweden would make nice bases for missiles, wouldn't they? And they were unavailable for NATO until his foolish, criminal decision to attack Ukraine.
And it's far more likely now that NATO missiles end up in Ukraine then it was before the invasion. I'd say it's inevitable.
295d
@no1marauder saidWRONG! Putin mentioned that.
LMAO! Funny Putin never mentioned that.
However, Finland and Sweden would make nice bases for missiles, wouldn't they? And they were unavailable for NATO until his foolish, criminal decision to attack Ukraine.
And it's far more likely now that NATO missiles end up in Ukraine then it was before the invasion. I'd say it's inevitable.
Finland and Sweden have never felt threatened by Russia before because Russia has always respected their borders. Sweden helped the USA snag Assange on false charges of rape so I always questioned their sovereignty. Not sure what's up with Finland.
Nuclear missiles would end up in Ukraine near the Russian border sooner or later if they had not invaded. Now that border is farther away. That is what Russia wanted. Trying to spin this as a loss for Russia is a symptom of ignorance of the real world situation there, but you did drink the cool aid. You don't accept the corporate news media is feeding you propaganda and that is why you are parroting their propaganda talking points. Are you getting paid to support a money pit that will never serve your interests? If not, why are you fighting against your own interests?
Would you pull cash out of your wallet and give it to the military industrial complex knowing it would be used to fight a war that does not serve your interests? Why do you think bleeding yourself dry to prolong a war is in your interests? You will get nothing in return but the bill. You are paying to bleed yourself dry so you can bleed Russia dry. The you will pay to bleed China, but not dry. They have the second largest economy in the world. That bleeding will take a lot more money than Ukraine.
And why are you not complaining about our government's invasion and occupation of the oil rich one third of Syria? It is no different.
@metal-brain saidYou seem stupidly unaware that both Sweden and Finland have now joined NATO precisely because Russia invaded Ukraine.
WRONG! Putin mentioned that.
Finland and Sweden have never felt threatened by Russia before because Russia has always respected their borders. Sweden helped the USA snag Assange on false charges of rape so I always questioned their sovereignty. Not sure what's up with Finland.
Nuclear missiles would end up in Ukraine near the Russian border sooner or later if they ...[text shortened]... out our government's invasion and occupation of the oil rich one third of Syria? It is no different.
That means NATO is now 250 miles from Russia's second largest city. https://theculturetrip.com/europe/russia/articles/how-to-travel-to-finland-from-st-petersburg/
How has that helped Russia's national security?
295d
@no1marauder saidWhy would both Sweden and Finland feel threatened by Russia just because they invaded Ukraine for security reasons? If anything both Sweden and Finland have made themselves more likely to be invaded precisely because they are trying to join NATO, especially Finland since they border Russia just like Ukraine did when they expressed the desire to join NATO.
You seem stupidly unaware that both Sweden and Finland have now joined NATO precisely because Russia invaded Ukraine.
That means NATO is now 250 miles from Russia's second largest city. https://theculturetrip.com/europe/russia/articles/how-to-travel-to-finland-from-st-petersburg/
How has that helped Russia's national security?
Don't you question any of the propaganda the political figureheads tell you?
@metal-brain saidDo you read anything but zerohedge?
Why would both Sweden and Finland feel threatened by Russia just because they invaded Ukraine for security reasons? If anything both Sweden and Finland have made themselves more likely to be invaded precisely because they are trying to join NATO, especially Finland since they border Russia just like Ukraine did when they expressed the desire to join NATO.
Don't you question any of the propaganda the political figureheads tell you?
Finland joined NATO in April.https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_213448.htm#:~:text=Finland%20became%20NATO's%20newest%20member,at%20NATO%20Headquarters%20in%20Brussels
Maybe they decided they didn't want to be the next nation Russia invaded for spurious "security reasons".
295d
@no1marauder
You have debated this with others so I will ask this question you have answered for others on this forum many times:
Why did Russia invade Ukraine? Be honest.